Musings from Christy Stewart-Smith, MD of The Gate London

Menu

Monthly Archives: August 2013

What is it about talk about missile strikes and Syria that makes me think of those old-style punishment beatings the IRA and UVF used to dole out to the local drug dealers?

It’s horrific to think of people being poisoned and gassed. We can all feel outraged on behalf of our fellow man.

But doesn’t taking unilateral action on the grounds of an arbitrary red-line transgression imply a de-facto elevation of our role from compassionate humans to judge, jury and – almost inevitably – executioner?

Our people are trying to work through the UN, as they certainly should.

But just as in the past with previous conflicts (some of which haven’t turned out that well in hindsight), the implication of a failure to agree is clear:

We’ll do it anyway. Because we think it needs to be done. So there.

And increasingly, politicians left and right seem happy to write-off the UN as a paralysed body, through which it is impossible to work.

I’m not even talking about the inherent dangers and consequences of unilateral, morally-derived action on a complex social, political and religious hornets’ nest (“Monkeys playing with Grenades”, according to the Russians).

In this world of grey areas, this one seems clear to me. It’s a simple question of working out the difference between your right to hold moral opinions and your right to enforce them on others:

Step One: Work through the UN to establish a proper consensus. Then Act. Together.

If that doesn’t work…

Step Two: Fix the UN and return to Step One.

If that doesn’t work…

Step Three: Accept that the world is a horrible place and will remain so until you go back to Step Two and get it right.

Minds are like parachutes, they say. They work best when they are open.

But actually most of our minds are closed most of the time. And it is extremely hard work opening them.

To the astonishment of most of her co-competitors, Yelena Isinbayeva, the world champion pole vaulter, spoke out yesterday defending the new Russian laws, which ban people from giving information about homosexuality to under-18s.

In fact it’s their astonishment that’s astonishing.

Building on the breakthrough work done in behavioural economics by Kahneman, Tversky and many others, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has built an impressive and persuasive theory about the nature of social and moral decision making.

He paints a picture of humans as “90% chimp, 10% bee”: Motivated predominantly by self-interest and the protection/promotion of small family groups, but also able to suppress [some] self-interest and make compromises in order to co-exist with other humans in larger groups that can compete more effectively.

Haidt provides compelling evidence that rational debate between opposing points of view rarely changes opinions. It seems we are all rubbish at seeking evidence in a balanced and objective way, to challenge the things we think we believe.

If we wish to believe, we seek evidence that supports our position. If we wish to disprove something, we search for the evidence that does that. In either case, we don’t search very hard. Changing our mind takes effort and uncertainty – two things we are genetically programmed to avoid.

Using the opinions and mores of those that surround is the most prevalent example of this predilection for idle evidence gathering. Ms. Isinbayeva, bolstered by the supposed authority provided by national legislation, presents Russians as distinct and different, “Maybe we are different than European people, than other people from different lands. We consider ourselves normal, standard people, we just live with boys with women, women with boys.”

Secondly, you must feel that, as a result of holding this minority opinion, you will be harshly judged or censured by a community of people whose views have an impact on your emotional or physical well-being.

This suggests that until the world’s community of athletes – Ms. Isinbayeva’s peers and her ‘professional’ society – becomes more important to her than her sense of identity as a Russian, her views will not change (assuming of course there is no unprecedented social and cultural liberal revolution in that country any time soon).

If we challenge her and threaten to strip her of her role as an Olympic Youth ambassador, the evidence suggests her position will only harden.

We need to embrace her and convince her that athletes are a world community and have an opportunity – even a responsibility – to act as an inspiration to everyone, beyond promoting narrow national interests. We need to persuade her that she can share in, benefit from and promote the progressive values this of this young, dynamic, international community, because of the admiration in which they are held by us non-Olympians.

We need to show her she can be a citizen of the world, not just a pole-vaulting Russian.